network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 4 months |
| seen | Feb 7 at 11:32 | |
| stats | profile views | 0 |
|
Jan 28 |
comment |
Index included columns Thanks for that. I think this is the best answer I had overall. |
|
Jan 28 |
accepted | Index included columns |
|
Jan 26 |
comment |
Index included columns It's not just about how unique it is though, right? I have about a million records per day in this table, between about 10000 customers, and with about 10 different event types. My query is for a time range, for a number of customers, and for specific event types. That why I figured a Timestamp,CustomerID,EventID key combination would be best. Or am I thinking about this wrong? |
|
Jan 26 |
comment |
Index included columns @marc_s - Yes, it is the ID column that's the clustered index. Odd that SQL suggested it, if it's unnecessary? |
|
Jan 26 |
comment |
Index included columns @ta.speot.is - I only ever insert and select from this table. I don't update or delete. |
|
Jan 26 |
asked | Index included columns |
|
Jan 2 |
comment |
Sequential GUID or bigint for 'huge' database table PK Marking this as the 'answer', as it's the best fit (and you seem to appreciate what I'm asking and why this isn't as straightforward as it might first appear). I think I'm going to go with a shared sequence generator (which will work similarly to your HiLo algorithm suggestion). I have this working on another system with few problems, I'll just have to put up with the extra dependency. Oh well. Thanks. |
|
Jan 2 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Jan 2 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Jan 2 |
awarded | Student |
|
Jan 2 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Jan 2 |
accepted | Sequential GUID or bigint for 'huge' database table PK |
|
Dec 27 |
asked | Sequential GUID or bigint for 'huge' database table PK |
